Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16800 of 2021 Applicant :- Shivam Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Ashish Pathak, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State have appeared through video conferencing.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2021, under Sections 307, 427, 34 IPC, Police Station-Bara, District- Prayagraj/Allahabad.
3. As per F.I.R. version, first informant is serving as accountant at Umapur Toll Plaza. On the date of incident at about 11 A.M. he was going to bank by the toll plaza vehicle with his driver to deposit the cash. While his vehicle was crossing petrol pump at Rambagh, he was ambushed by the present applicant Shivam Tiwari and two accomplice with the crude bomb inflicting injuries to him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no motive has been shown by the first informant in the FIR or in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of crime as mentioned in the FIR. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is clearly stated by the first informant that Shivam Tiwari (applicant) was serving at toll plaza and he was removed by the Manager, Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey. Due to removal from service, he was very much annoyed with Mr. Santosh Dubey and threatened him for facing dire consequences and always pressurizing him to reinstate in service. Due to refusal made by Mr. Santosh Kumar Dubey, in annoyance, Shivam Tiwari with his two accomplice committed the crime of throwing crude bomb on the vehicle of the present informant. It is submitted that in the statement under Sectionn 161 Cr.P.C. no motive has been attributed to the present applicant, whereas the differences has been shown between Shivam Tiwari and Santosh Kumar Dubey, therefore, motive if any, would maximum be attributed against the Manager of the toll plaza. It is further submitted that Ved Prakash Nai, one of the witnesses, has stated that on the date of incident he was irrigating his field which is adjacent to the road and had seen Suchit Pashi and one another boy who were running through the field . In the aforesaid statement witness has stated that Suchit Pashi was the tractor driver of Shivam Tiwari. In this way of the matter witness Ved Prakash Nai has not taken name of the present applicant showing his presence at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted in para 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it is averred that the present applicant is wanted in one more case i.e. Case Crime No. 216 of 2018. It is submitted at the bar that in the aforesaid matter present applicant has already been enlarged on bail.
It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 16.02.2021. There is no chances of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with prosecution evidence. He undertakes to appear personally on each and every date and also not seek any unnecessary adjournment during trial. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse liberty of bail. It is further submitted that except the aforesaid cases there is no criminal history of the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that innocence of applicant cannot be adjudicated at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence and there is likelihood of his involvement in other case. In case, he is released on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has not made any objection to the aforesaid account as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant with respect to the criminal history.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused, totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018)3 SCC 22, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case at this stage, I find it an appropriate case to release applicant on bail.
7. The application is allowed. Let applicant, Shivam Tiwari involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall abide the orders of Court, shall attend the Court on each and every date and shall not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
8. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
9. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties shall be verified by Court concerned, and in case of breach of any of above conditions by applicant, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 13.5.2021 Manish Tripathi